[nuerow]

> That's not what's exciting about bitcoin. What's exciting is that it is the first digital, global money that isn't protected by the proof of violence of the state.

No, not really. At all. You're trying to make it sound like everyone is just an anarchist activist trying to fight the power, when in reality it's just people scrambling to make a quick buck.

Let's be real and put it in perspective: do you feel that people such as the Winklevoss twins give a damn about theoretical concepts such as "proof of violence by the state"?

[spiorf]

Motivation of participants is irrelevant. Bitcoin is working because its participants are greedy and behave as such.

[nuerow]

> Motivation of participants is irrelevant. Bitcoin is working because its participants are greedy and behave as such.

The key problem you're trying to glance over is the fact that not all participants have the same degree of influence or control.

A greedy participant who is in a position to manipulate the market to fit his goals is in an entirely different position than a greedy participant who is completely powerless and vulnerable to this manipulation.

Is it ok if someone participating in a Ponzi scheme is fleeced just because you accuse him of being greedy?

[hnbad]

> Is it ok if someone participating in a Ponzi scheme is fleeced just because you accuse him of being greedy?

I know this is counter-intuitive, but yes. Yes, they think that.

They think that human nature is to be greedy and screw other people over to your own advantage. This is what they mean that capitalism is natural because it builds on human nature. Nevermind that for most of history human societies have been built on gift economies or that humans always cooperate in times of extreme crisis unless there are external influences explicitly preventing it.

Social interactions are transactional to them and if you luck out by participating in a Ponzi scheme early that's good and righteous but if you lose by coming in late and being fleeced, it's your own fault. Luck justifies the spoils of success.

[nuerow]

> Nevermind that for most of history human societies have been built on gift economies or that humans always cooperate in times of extreme crisis unless there are external influences explicitly preventing it.

The key point here is that in BTC, or any crypto or unregulated market, there is no external influence preventing it. In fact, there are only external influences ensuring that they will screw up the little guy and fleece them out of their hard-earned money.

With real money, we have central banks actively working to both stabilize it's value and increase economic growth. That's as close there is to "cooperating in times of extreme crisis" there is at a national or even regional scale.

With crypto in general and BTC in particular, the name of the game is pumping it and let everyone else end up holding the bag.

[hnbad]

> The key point here is that in BTC, or any crypto or unregulated market, there is no external influence preventing it. In fact, there are only external influences ensuring that they will screw up the little guy and fleece them out of their hard-earned money.

I'm not sure you're replying to the right point since it seems you largely also share the opinion that crypto is mostly a scam even if not every participant is in on it.

I was talking about hierarchies of power. Capitalism, caste systems, patriarchies (think of Middle Eastern "honor" systems), literally having a gun pointed at your head, etc. Those are external influences that can prevent and disrupt cooperation that would otherwise arise naturally.

If I see an overturned car on the road side, I stop to see if I can help. But if I'm on the way to my job which I need to continue having a roof over my head and feed my family and being late could get me fired and it's hard to find something else, I'm more likely to just move on.

[bart_spoon]

> Bitcoin is working

It isn't working though. It isn't practically useful for anything. They only people getting value out of bitcoin are doing so by converting it back to fiat. You can't buy virtually anything with Bitcoin.

If Bitcoin was meant to be a pyramid scheme where you get rich by convincing others to prop it up long enough for you to cash out, it is working. As a currency, its a total failure.

[derangedHorse]

This is a false statement, communities have found value in Bitcoin. El Salvador being the go-to example but we're also seeing adoption in other places, exemplified by the acceptance of Bitcoin at the Venezuelan airport. In addition to that we're seeing companies dedicated to the ad-hoc conversion of crypto to local currencies using specialized debit/credit card. This will effectively help facilitate the move to the ubiquitous spending of crypto.

[koonsolo]

> do you feel that people such as the Winklevoss twins give a damn about theoretical concepts such as "proof of violence by the state"?

They of course do give a damn about theoretical concepts such as "The Great Monetary Inflation"

They make a pretty good case for bitcoin at https://winklevosscapital.com/the-case-for-500k-bitcoin/

But don't worry about all of this, I'm sure you can just dismiss this all. Meanwhile our investments are going through the roof :P

[nuerow]

> They of course do give a damn about theoretical concepts such as "The Great Monetary Inflation"

It seems you tried to shift the subject mid-discussion and thus move the goalpost. The point being discussed was "proof of violence by the state", but somehow you've tried to change subject mid-discussion to inflation and how they argue that going long in BTC is a profitable investment.

In fact, the Winklevoss Capital article you quoted even praise the US dollar as "a reliable store of value" and even go as far as praising the Federal Reserve and it's "comparatively good management".

This doesn't sound like "fight the power" to me. In fact, it just reads as a marketing brochure selling an investment.

[koonsolo]

> the Winklevoss Capital article you quoted even praise the US dollar as "a reliable store of value"

Haha, you must be blind. Nowhere in the article did they say that. I quote: "we believe there are fundamental problems with gold, oil, and the U.S. dollar as stores of value going forward". Then they go on to explain how the dollar is mismanaged.

Have fun living in your own world.

[nuerow]

> Haha, you must be blind. Nowhere in the article did they say that.

Second paragraph. Hard to miss by anyone who clicked on the link. Be my guest and check it out.

> I quote: "we believe there are fundamental problems with gold, oil, and the U.S. dollar as stores of value going forward".

Somehow you managed to skip just enough of the text to glance over the part I quoted and you claimed it doesn't exist. That isn't very honest of you.

Anyway, it seems you also failed to notice that the thesis of that article is that the economic stimulus programs adopted by not only the US but also essentially the whole world, like any Keynesian policy applied to an economic downturn, involves policies that devalue the dollar through inflation.

They also argue that they believe that gold is immune but has a fixed supply that can accompany increases in demand.

Based on these points, they proceed to argue that Bitcoin is a better long term investment because, unlike gold and the US Dollar, it's supply is capped, thus it's value is bound to grow faster than inflation and gold prices, provided that demand continues to grow.

With this in mind, do you actually understand the sales pitch made by Winklevoss Capital?

[koonsolo]

"For the last 75 years, the U.S. dollar has also been a reliable store of value."

I'm not a native English speaker, but "has been" is a past tense. Then they explain why these times have indeed passed.

If you cannot interpret past, present and future, then there is no point in us discussing this further.

EDIT: Ok, no problem then, Winklevoss twins think the US dollar is a reliable store of value. Great article they wrote about that!

[nobody9999]

>I'm not a native English speaker, but "has been" is a past tense. Then they explain why these times have indeed passed.

Not being a native English speaker seems to have led you down the wrong path here.

As a native English speaker, I can confirm that you're incorrect in your assessment.

The phrase "has been," e.g., 'the dog has been feeling poorly', or 'Steve has been lying to you', or 'For the last 75 years, the U.S. dollar has also been a reliable store of value.' absolutely refers to what has already happened, but it certainly does not exclude the idea that whatever 'has been' is still happening.

In fact, both of my examples, as well as your quote strongly imply that what "has been" the case continues to be so.

If you cannot properly interpret English as it's actually used, then perhaps someone can help you with that, rather than refuse to engage with you[0].

Unless, of course, you are uninterested in anything that contradicts what you want to believe.

Oh, and you're welcome.

[0] See what I did there?

[nobody9999]

>EDIT: Ok, no problem then, Winklevoss twins think the US dollar is a reliable store of value. Great article they wrote about that!

Just to clarify, I didn't read the article in question, nor do I care what those folks think about anything.

I merely provided you with information about English usage that seemed to have eluded you. Again, you're welcome.

[piva00]

> For the last 75 years, the U.S. dollar has also been a reliable store of value. This is a result of its comparatively good management by the Federal Reserve and the strength, resilience, and reputation of the U.S. economy. In fact, it is the most widely held fiat currency in the world and recognized as the global reserve currency, denominating and settling the majority of international trade.

Basically their whole schtick: "we believe that the US dollar has been amazing, now we found this new asset class we believe we can invest and earn money on, this is our marketing piece for why you should believe that too".

They aren't "fighting the man", they are trying to convince others to jump onto the bandwagon which they are heavily invested in to make a profit.

Not sure why you are still caught up on this ideological debate when Bitcoin has long ago left that camp of ideology and got absorbed into the pure financial-capitalist camp...

Bitcoin now is to make money, not to fight the system. Fighting the system is just the marketing fluff being used to capture people like you.

Good luck and godspeed.

[nuerow]

> They aren't "fighting the man", they are trying to convince others to jump onto the bandwagon which they are heavily invested in to make a profit.

I would also add that the Winklevoss Capital article actually reads like a self-serving plea to get third parties to validate their own investment, instead of a selfless heads-up.

The Winklevoss twins already have a few billion dollars worth of BTC, and in their opinion piece they are very clear in the way they argud that as BTC supply is restricted by design then any increase in demand ensures an increase in price. Consequently, the only thing they need to do to ensure that they get richer from BTC is to pump it up and sit on their early mover's ass.